ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2021
Intra-corporeal robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis comparing perioperative and long-term survival outcomes and recurrence patterns.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra-corporeal robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Demonstrating the non-inferiority of robotic radical cystectomy for cT3-cT4 urothelial carcinoma in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion vs open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.BJU international · 2025Article
- Article
- Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Where we are in 2023.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns between robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intra-corporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 177 bladder cancer patients who received iRARC or ORC at Fujita Health University between 2008 and 2020. Our primary endpoint was long-term oncological outcomes. As a secondary endpoint, we examined perioperative outcomes, complications, and recurrence patterns. These outcome measures were compared between the propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts.
resultsPS-matched analysis resulted in 60 matched pairs from iRARC and ORC groups. The iRARC cohort was associated with significantly longer operative time (p = 0.02), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), fewer overall complications (p = 0.03), and lower rate of postoperative ileus (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between iRARC and ORC in 5-year RFS (p = 0.46), CSS (p = 0.63), and OS (p = 0.71). RFS and CSS were also comparable, even in locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease. Multivariate analysis identified lymphovascular invasion as a robust predictor of RFS, CSS, and OS. The number of recurrence was similar between the groups, while extra-pelvic lymph nodes were more frequent in iRARC than that in ORC (22.7% vs. 7.7%).
conclusionsiRARC has favorable perioperative outcomes, fewer complications, and comparable long-term survival outcomes, including locally advanced (≥ cT3) disease, compared to that in ORC. Our results need to be validated in prospective randomized clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.